A Forum for Orthodox Jewish thought on Halacha, Hashkafa, and the social issues of our time.

Friday, December 12, 2014

The Strange Case of Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn

I really do try and stay out of the fray on these matters.
But when I am sucked into the conversation by one of the protagonists, I have
to respond.

First let me say that I always had respect for a man who has
offered so much to the world of Torah study. Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn’s index to the Mishna
Berurah and the Igros Moshe (both in Hebrew and English) is a valuable resource
for Halacha L’Maase as understood by two giants of Torah, Rabbis Kagan and Feinstein. For this alone,
he has earned a high place in heaven.

His relationship with one of the premiere Poskim of our time,
Rav Moshe Sternbuch has given him the fast track to Halacha L’Maase (according
to this Posek) on many issues of our day. And he has been generous in sharing
that with the rest of us via his blog, Daas Torah.

He has also in the past been a strong voice in the fight
against sex abuse. That is probably at least in part to do with his training.
He has a PhD in psychology. It is for this reason that I gave him a lot of latitude
on issues with which I do not necessarily agree… and even on the issue in which
he attacked me, that of the Meisels/seminary case.

For some reason that I do not fully understand something
seems to have happened that changed his entire approach to sex abuse because of this particular case.
Instead of the usual attitude expressed by him about how hurtful sex abuse is
the the victims and how terrible cover-ups are, he seems to have changed sides here. He has taken
the position usually taken by those who wish to save the offending institutions.
In this case Meisels’ seminaries. Instead of being upset at the enablers he is defending
them… or at least letting them off the hook… and allowing them to keep their
jobs as though nothing happened.

In his goal of Kashering those seminaries, he has minimized
Meisel’s crime and assumed only the most minimal of offenses - comparing them to inappropriate
hugging of his students. Although he claims not to have done so and that he only used that phrase in comparative terms - the message is clear: The
crimes were not all that bad. And looked at in secular terms, wouldn’t even register
a nod.

While he later explained that he did not mean to say
that his crimes were only hugs... that he used that phrase in comparative
terms, it nonetheless sends the message that the enabling teachers who knew about it
were’t that bad either.

His ultimate goal here then is not to give solace and
comfort to the victims, but to save the institutions and the jobs of all the teachers. This
is the reaction one might expect from leaders of any institution. (e.g.YU,
Agudah, Chabad, Satmar) – right or wrong - will all to one degree or another try
and put the best possible spin on whatever happened. But an objective person should remain suspicious about such defenses in light of all that has been reported about it. Rabbi Eidensohn seems to
have lost all objectivity here. And again, I am not entirely sure why.

The minute anyone brings evidence that counters his puzzling
position on this, he tends to question their motives or ability to see things ‘clearly’
(translation: the way he does.) Or that they are lying about the facts. Or that
heroes like Rabbi Yosef Blau that are silent about his being attacked by his proptagonists – as tough those attacks were unfair and required rebuke from any fair minded individual.

Rabbi Eidensohn is pretty good at attacking the other side too. He said some pretty
unflattering things about me in the past as well. Although including me now with Rabbi Blau and David
Morris -two heroes on the issue of sex abuse - actually flatters me. I am honored to be
included with them. It is an honor that I do not think I deserve.

There is probably a good reason that that Rabbi Blau and
David Morris did not defend Rabbi Eidensohn for the attacks by Yerachmiel
Lopin. They probably see things more the way Yerachmiel does than the way Rabbi Eidensohn does. As I am inclined to see them after reading quotes
of victims describing what he did to them. I have also been privy to information about an egregious sexual
act with at least one of his students that makes a mockery of claims that in
relative terms this was only a hug.

More importantly - the evidence of abuse was made clear by 3 first rate Dayanim
of impeccable character and integrity that comprised the Chicago Beis Din(CBD).
It then handed over the task for implementing changes to a distinguished panel
of jurists in Bnei Brak (the IBD). After a short examination of the facts sent
to them by the CBD they got Meisels to sell those schools; claimed that Meisels
was no longer involved; and instituted
new guidelines and a strict enforcement policy.

The CBD on the other hand spent months reviewing the case
and listened to testimony from victims and from Meisels himself. Who admitted to
some of his crimes. They stood their ground and refused to give their
imprimatur to those schools because they felt the danger of abuse still
existed. That certain teachers and administrators that enabled the abuse by
telling students not to report it, and backing it up with threats –were still there.

Rabbi Eidensohn on the other hand - after listening to one member of the
IBD - sided completely with them and strongly disparaged the CBD for
standing firm. When I supported the CBD, he had some pretty unkind things
to say about me too.

When the CBD finally gave their imprimatur to those
seminaries (after a joint meeting with the IBD and a seventh jurist) without any
substantial changes, I didn’t understand it in light of what I knew was a
terrible crime and the way those faculty and administration members tried to cover it up.

Rabbi Eidensohn ignored or minimized those acts dismissing
them as insignificant and in the process managed to heap an additional insults
at the CBD - saying that this could have been resolved a long time ago since
nothing changed from the original IBD actions with respect to those seminaries.

There have been accusations and attacks going back and forth
between Rabbi Eidenson and his protagonists. I am not going to comment on
those although I do have an opinion. This post is long enough.

I try and be objective and bend over backwards to give people
the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot understand the incredible bias Rabbi
Eidensohn has shown here. To say that I am disappointed in his change of attitude
would be an understatement. It is truly uncharacteristic of his past history on
these matters.

Follow by Email

Followers

Recent Comments

About Me

My outlook on Judaism is based mostly on the teachings of my primary Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik from whom I received my rabbinic ordination. It is also based on a search for spiritual truth. Among the various sources that put me on the right path, two great philosophic works stand out: “Halakhic Man” and “Lonely Man of Faith” authored by the pre-eminent Jewish philosopher and theologian, Rabbi, Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Of great significance is Rabbi, Dr. Norman Lamm's conceptualization and models of Torah U’Mada and Dr. Eliezer Berkovits who introduced me to the world of philosophic thought. Among my early influences were two pioneers of American Elementary Torah Chinuch, Rabbis Shmuel Kaufman and Yaakov Levi. The Yeshivos I attended were Yeshivas Telshe for early high school and more significantly, the Hebrew Theological College where for a period of ten years, my Rebbeim included such great Rabbinic figures as Rabbis Mordechai Rogov, Shmaryahu Meltzer, Yaakov Perlow, Herzl Kaplan, and Selig Starr. I also attended Roosevelt University where I received my Bachelor's Degree - majoring in Psychology.